Honestly, I can't help but laugh at those of you who actually believe the Saints defenders took the field with the sole purpose to target and intentionally injure players.

Holy Hyperbole, Batman!

it's more laughable to see guys squirming out of this situation by misinterpreting what others say, and then refuting it. the Saints defenders did not show a "sole purpose" in injuring anyone, nor were they suspended or punished for that.

intelligent discussions among people with varying views go so much better if they can limit themselves to the facts of the matter, and not create ridiculous arguments._________________

Serious question. Since Vilma and Allen were activated and I believe taken off the NI (non injury) list, were there two players cut from the original 53 man roster? Or were they already on it? If not is there any effect with the Saints salary cap? Anyone else think Tom Benson was secretly hoping this decesion was made on Monday rather then yesterday so their contracts were not guaranteed for 2012?_________________ 2015 Bird Watch: To many new faces to choose?

While it was a victory [for the players] on the surface, it was fairly hollow and potentially temporary.

Apart from the fact that the timing of the decision prevented the players from practicing in preparation for Week One, the ruling gives the NFL another chance to impose the suspensions in a way that draws clear lines between conduct detrimental to the game (over which Commissioner Roger Goodell has jurisdiction) and salary-cap violations arising from a pay-for-performance/bounty system (over which Goodell has no jurisdiction).

It’s likely that the league will simply re-issue the same suspensions. Indeed, the memo sent by NFL general counsel Jeff Pash to the various teams on Friday clearly indicates that the league continues to believe that wrongdoing occurred — and that there should be significant punishment for it.

Goodell could reinstate the suspensions but the CBA process would kick in and the players would appeal. He would also have to provide the evidence he relied on to prove intent to injure. No notes scribbled on a napkin or "he said, she said" this time. Not to mention a Judge will be scrutinizing his every move.

If the clear cut evidence is truly there, as Goodell has repeatedly claimed, then I have no doubt that there be another punishment coming. That's a pretty big "if" at this point though.

Again... really? We're back on this intent? This isn't criminal court. Intent doesn't have to be proven. All that needs to be proven is that conduct detrimental to the league as a whole occurred and punitive actions can be taken.

And please, because if you're still trying to pretend to the contrary you're being willfully ignorant, stop with the presumption that the evidence that was released to the media by the Players' Association is the whole extent of all the evidence there is. This "well, I haven't seen it, so it must not exist" stance is naive and dumb.

Ignored again...

I think those two points are, without a doubt, the two most widely ignored points in the conversation. And theyve been ignored since day 1.

1. It doesnt matter if its a "Pay To Injure" program or a "Pay For Injure" program. Both are equally reprehensible and both deserve equal punishment.

2. The evidence we have seen isnt necessarily all the evidence. The evidence we have seen is exactly what the NFLPA wanted the fans to see. Thats it. If you dont believe every political ad you see because of the agenda thats fueling it, why would you believe what the NFLPA released is "the case, the whole case and nothing but the case?"

I'm of the belief that if there was substantial evidence this wouldn't have been overturned before the start of the season.

If I tell you I used to date Rihanna and I have proof you ask for the proof. If I beat around the bush and never show the proof what are you to believe other than that I'm a liar?_________________

I'm of the belief that if there was substantial evidence this wouldn't have been overturned before the start of the season.

If I tell you I used to date Rihanna and I have proof you ask for the proof. If I beat around the bush and never show the proof what are you to believe other than that I'm a liar?

The fact that it was overturned has absolutely nothing at all to do with proof and everything to do with procedure. They are just going to refile suspensions and word it differently. This really changes nothing other than delaying when they have to serve their punishments. The NFL is not obliged to prove anything and you can believe them or disbelieve them as you wish, just like I could if you claimed to have dated Rihanna. You can try and prove it to me if your ego demands it, but it really doesn't matter._________________

Wilfred wrote:

Memory is like the Packers when they are behind by two touchdowns in the 4th quarter... It comes back.

This ruling has NOTHING to do with any evidence Goodell may or may not have had.

spilltray wrote:

The fact that it was overturned has absolutely nothing at all to do with proof and everything to do with procedure. They are just going to refile suspensions and word it differently. This really changes nothing other than delaying when they have to serve their punishments. The NFL is not obliged to prove anything and you can believe them or disbelieve them as you wish, just like I could if you claimed to have dated Rihanna. You can try and prove it to me if your ego demands it, but it really doesn't matter.

And this point is now added to the list._________________
CK on the sig

I'm of the belief that if there was substantial evidence this wouldn't have been overturned before the start of the season.

If I tell you I used to date Rihanna and I have proof you ask for the proof. If I beat around the bush and never show the proof what are you to believe other than that I'm a liar?

The fact that it was overturned has absolutely nothing at all to do with proof and everything to do with procedure. They are just going to refile suspensions and word it differently. This really changes nothing other than delaying when they have to serve their punishments. The NFL is not obliged to prove anything and you can believe them or disbelieve them as you wish, just like I could if you claimed to have dated Rihanna. You can try and prove it to me if your ego demands it, but it really doesn't matter.

Just read the full story. My bad

I do think, regardless that Goodell probably lacks evidence._________________

The LBCJoined: 12 Jan 2008Posts: 27556Location: Where We Can't Have Nice Things

Posted: Sat Sep 08, 2012 2:19 pm Post subject:

Colt45fool wrote:

spilltray wrote:

Colt45fool wrote:

I'm of the belief that if there was substantial evidence this wouldn't have been overturned before the start of the season.

If I tell you I used to date Rihanna and I have proof you ask for the proof. If I beat around the bush and never show the proof what are you to believe other than that I'm a liar?

The fact that it was overturned has absolutely nothing at all to do with proof and everything to do with procedure. They are just going to refile suspensions and word it differently. This really changes nothing other than delaying when they have to serve their punishments. The NFL is not obliged to prove anything and you can believe them or disbelieve them as you wish, just like I could if you claimed to have dated Rihanna. You can try and prove it to me if your ego demands it, but it really doesn't matter.

Just read the full story. My bad

I do think, regardless that Goodell probably lacks evidence.

Honest question, based upon what exactly?

As has been beaten to death, the evidence publicly spread by the media was only the evidence the NFLPA chose to leak from among the entirety of the evidence that was disclosed to them. Quite frankly, if that was all the evidence there was and they felt that it wasn't enough to justify the suspensions, logic would suggest that the NFLPA would be challenging the suspension much more on a level of evidentiary support rather than procedural loopholes.

However, what's more worth noting is that the manner in which the current CBA frames "conduct detrimental to the shield," which from everything I've read doesn't require irrefutable proof beyond a reasonable doubt... rather reasonable suspicion and proof that the behavior itself is detrimental to the league as a whole. This isn't a court of law, it's the court of the National Football League. And I really don't think I need to go into how rewarding players for injuring other players is detrimental to the league - considering it has resounding effects on multiple levels._________________

The ruling was simple. The labor deal gives authority to multiple people to resolve multiple types of disputes.
The Commissioner has the authority to discipline players for conduct detrimental to the game. The “System Arbitrator” (Stephen Burbank) has the authority to resolve issues of discipline arising from salary-cap violations.

The suspensions of Saints players were wiped out because the initial letters from the Commissioner to the suspended players failed to make sufficiently clear the fact that the Commissioner was acting only under his authority to suspend players for conduct detrimental to the game.

And so the process begins again, with the league office fully aware of the line between the two sources of authority — and with the league more than capable of staying in the proper lane the next time around.